ACROSSEE - Extension of the TRANSTOOLS model to the Western Balkans

Transcription

1 - Extension of the TRANSTOOLS model to the Dissemination level: WP: 4 (Transport Model) Author (s): Stefan Schwillinsky, Lucas Weiss (AustriaTech) Status (F: final, D: draft): F Date: December 2014 File name: ACROSSEE_WP4_Task4.3

2 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ACROSSEE project Task description Goals and objectives Approach Analysis Pan-European Corridors Border Crossing Points (BCPs) Models Network Zones Conclusion Annex I: Maps Page 2 of 34

3 1 Introduction 1.1 ACROSSEE project The ACROSSEE project (Accessibility improved at border CROSings for the development of South East Europe), co-financed by the EU Transnational Cooperation Programme South-East Europe, 4th Call aims at improving cross border accessibility in South-East Europe and optimizing the high level road and rail networks. It has as core activity the assessment of relevant border crossing points (BCP) to identify the mix of infrastructural and organizational measure that need to be implemented in order to improve the transport efficiency of the rail and road infrastructure and to ensure economic prosperity by better access to all regions of the South East Europe (SEE) area. 1.2 Task description In the course of the ACROSSEE project a data collection about cross border and transport relevant data in the South East Europe area was made. The data collection covered surveys of 59 border stations, traffic flow surveys at 53 Border Crossing Points (BCPs), rail and road networks and certain key parameters (e.g. lanes/tracks, capacity). A transport model was created within ACROSSEE Task 4.2 Transport Model to assess the impacts of certain measures. As a supplementary work to the transport model of ACROSSEE the assessment of the following aspects is done: How does the data of the ACROSSEE transport model coincide with the data currently used in the TRANSTOOLS model Which TRANSTOOLS model data could be updated with the available ACROSSEE model data, in terms of networks, matrices, and zone data? Page 3 of 34

4 Elaboration of analysis and recommendations 1.3 Goals and objectives In order to ensure a cross fertilization between regional and EU-wide modelling activities, all available data out of the ACROSSEE transport model will be compared against the TRANSTOOLS data, to illustrate which data and outcomes could be of interest for the currently on-going modelling initiative TRANSTOOLS. Since the TRANSTOOLS 3 project is delayed, extended until the end of 2015 (and therefore unavailable), the comparison is made on basis of TRANSTOOLS v and will comprise: Road network Rail network Zone and structural data Origin / Destination matrices Based on this analysis recommendations shall summarize the findings on where the results from ACROSSEE can help to improve the (future) TRANSTOOLS model. 1.4 Approach The work summarised within this report focuses on the comparison between the available data of the ACROSSEE transport model and the TRANSTOOLS model data (v2.1.10). The ACROSSEE transport model covers the whole area of South East Europe (Programme), which consists of the following 16 participating countries: Albania, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy 1, Republic of Moldova, 1 only some of its regions Page 4 of 34

5 Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine 1 (see Figure 1). Therefore the focus of this analysis will be on this area. Figure 1: Overview about South East Europe (SEE) 2 Figure 2 shows a map of the pan-european transport corridors in South East Europe, where is can be seen that several pan-european corridors (IV, V, VII, VIII, IX, X) touch and go through the area. 2 Page 5 of 34

6 Figure 2: Map of the pan-european transport corridors in SEE area 3 The ACROSSEE transport model was implemented by using the Citilabs CUBE modelling software, calibrated on the base year 2013 (for details please see the ACROSSEE Deliverables and 4.2). The TRANSTOOLS model (v2.1.10) was build using the European transport modelling software TRANSTOOLS (TOOLS for TRansport Forecasting ANd Scenario testing), which has been developed in collaboration of a number of European institutes and companies and was funded by the European Commission Joint Research Centre's Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) and DG TREN. Furthermore the base situation is the year 2005 (further details can be found at It has to be noted, that due to the fact that the base years are very different, no direct comparison of the data is possible, but rather on a Meta level. The results of the assessment shall identify the potential of integrating data coming from the ACROSSEE project to improve the TRANSTOOLS data in the SEE area. 3 Source: Page 6 of 34

7 2 Analysis The study focuses on the comparison between available and comparable data of the ACROSSEE and TRANSTOOLS model. The main outputs of the analysis are the findings on where the results from ACROSSEE could help to improve the TRANSTOOLS model. 2.1 Pan-European Corridors In Crete (1994) and Helsinki (1997) the ten Pan-European transport corridors were agreed on. They link Europe from the Atlantic to the river Volga and from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean Sea. The ten are corridors multimodal transport axes, road and rail corridors interconnected to nodal points of other transport modes (seaports, airports, inland waterway ports). Corridor VII is the inland waterway of the Danube River. Figure 3 provides an overview about all pan- European corridors. Figure 3: Pan-European corridors 3 Page 7 of 34

8 The following Table 1 gives a short overview about alignments, involved transport modes and countries of the corridors IV, V, VII, VIII, IX, X which touch and go through South East Europe. Certain corridors involve quite a lot of countries in South East Europe, while others only a few. Table 1: Overview on pan-european transport corridors in SEE area Nr Alignment Transport modes Concerned countries IV Dresden/Nuremberg - Prague - Vienna - Bratislava - Győr - Budapest - Arad - Bucharest - Constanta / Craiova - Sofia - Thessaloniki / Plovdiv - Istanbul V Venice - Trieste/Koper - Ljubljana - Maribor - Budapest - Uzhhorod - Lviv Kiev Branch A: Bratislava - Žilina - Košice - Uzhhorod Branch B: Rijeka - Zagreb - Budapest Branch C: Ploče - Sarajevo - Osijek - Budapest Railways, Roads, Aviation, Navigation Railways, Roads, Aviation, Navigation Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Turkey Bosnia Herzegovina, Croatia, Italy, Hungary, Ukraine, Slovakia, Slovenia VII The Danube River Inland waterway Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, (Northwest-Southeast) Hungary, Moldavia, Romania, Slovakia, Ukraine, FR Yugoslavia VIII Durrës - Tirana - Skopje - Sofia Railways, Roads, Albania, Bulgaria, FYR of Macedonia - Plovdiv - Burgas - Varna Aviation, Navigation IX Helsinki - Vyborg - St. Railways, Roads, Belarus, Bulgaria, Finland, Lithuania, Petersburg - Pskov - Gomel - Aviation, Navigation Moldova, Romania, Russia, Ukraine Page 8 of 34

9 Kiev - Ljubashevka - Chişinău - Bucharest - Dimitrovgrad - Alexandroupolis Major sub-alignment: St. Petersburg - Moscow - Kiev. Branch A: Klaipeda - Vilnius - Minsk - Gomel Branch B: Kaliningrad - Vilnius - Minsk - Gomel Branch C: Ljubashevka - Rozdilna - Odessa X Salzburg - Ljubljana - Zagreb - Beograd - Niš - Skopje - Veles - Thessaloniki Branch A: Graz - Maribor - Zagreb Branch B: Budapest - Novi Sad - Beograd Branch C: Niš - Sofia - Plovdiv - Dimitrovgrad - Istanbul via Corridor IV Branch D: Veles - Prilep - Bitola - Florina - Igoumenitsa Railways, Roads, Aviation, Navigation Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, FYR of Macedonia, Greece, Hungary, Slovenia, FR Yugoslavia Page 9 of 34

10 2.2 Border Crossing Points (BCPs) Within ACROSSEE surveys were made at 59 single BCPs to find out about the current conditions and situation, problems, future plans. The survey included a lot of wide ranging questions. Therefore this data could be used as input for certain (modelling) activities. In the following pages some important points of the data collection are listed: General characteristics like name of border station, country, bordering with, construction year, type and year of last intervention Number of tracks and lanes (entering, exiting): o Rail: freight domestic, freight international, passenger domestic, passenger international, other tracks e.g. garage, shunting, repair, engine-shed, warehouse, customs, outdrawing o Road: passenger cars EU, passenger cars non EU, buses EU, buses non EU, trucks EU, trucks Non EU, trucks TIR, trucks dangerous goods, trucks empty Agencies present at the station like customs, police, phyto-sanitary, veterinary, immigration, visa issuing, technical inspection and corresponding details to number of staff, working hours, computer knowledge, English knowledge etc. Other facilities e.g. forwarders, banks, coffee shops, restaurants, duty free shops, national tourism organization office etc. Other installations and equipment like buildings, electric power, water supply, lighting, telephone connection, computer equipment, internet connection, cameras, tracing means, radioactivity control equipment, storage areas, cargo handling equipment, disinfection area, quarantine area, equipment for phyto-sanitary controls, marshalling yards, ramps, platforms etc. Page 10 of 34

11 Further details and information about o Procedures and documents required for each vehicle category and the respective duration o Estimation of waiting time BEFORE the performance of the border controls o Green lanes (Road BCPs) o Locomotive change (Rail BCPs) o Performance of the controls on board o Performance of controls simultaneously o Performance of controls at separate areas o Existence of Internet connection with Central Customs Offices o Regular communication/ exchange of information with the authorities of the neighboring country's station o Time measurements before for the duration of the border controls o Annual traffic volumes per type of train and truck - Entering and exiting country o Information concerning traffic o Peak periods at the station o Daily capacity of the station at entrance and exit o Percentage of the used capacity of the station o Main problems of the BCP o Plans for development of the BCP o Suggestions for the improvement of the BCP Page 11 of 34

12 o Estimation of the average time needed for all the procedures at the BCP on the other side of the borders o The infrastructure of the neighboring BCP is the appropriate one? o The most important problems of the neighboring BCP that affect the performance and Level of service of the surveyed BCP o Reasons of the problems mentioned before (if mentioned) o Description of the level of cooperation between the agencies present at the neighboring BCP o Future plans of the neighboring BCP that the authorities are aware of Truck driver questionnaires o Entering or exiting vehicle, vehicle's classification, vehicle's registration country, vehicle's registration plate o Vehicle's origin point and destination point, vehicle's route o Transit frequency o National road network or different route o Approximate distance (in km) and total average time (in hours) from origin point to destination point (in km) o Code, type, weight (tones)of commodities o Information regarding the return trip of the vehicle (empty or loaded) o Waiting time in queue (minutes) before the start of the procedures, total waiting time at this station during this trip (minutes) o Reason of delay Page 12 of 34

13 o Usual waiting time at this station (minutes), time needed for all the controls (minutes) this time o Problems of this particular station, problems at other BCPs along your route These surveys were carried out at the following road and rail Border Crossing Points: Rail BCPs o Savski Marof (Croatia-Slovenia) o Koprivnica (Croatia-Hungary) o Slavonski Šamac (Croatia-Bosnia Herzegovina) o Tovarnik (Croatia-Serbia) o Gyekenyes (Hungary-Croatia) o Kelebia (Hungary-Serbia) o Lokoshaza (Hungary-Romania) o Zahony (Hungary-Ukraine) o Dobova (Slovenia-Croatia) o Curtici (Romania-Hungary) o Dornesti (Romania-Ukraine) o Giurgiu (Romania-Bulgaria) o Holboca (Romania-Moldova) o Stamora Moravita (Romania-Serbia) o Brasina (Serbia-Bosnia Herzegovina) o Ristovac (Serbia-FYROM) o Kolovrat (Serbia-FYROM) Page 13 of 34

14 o Sid (Serbia-Croatia) o Subotica (Serbia-Hungary) o Dimitrovgrad (Serbia-Bulgaria) o Vatin (Serbia-Romania) o Bajza (Albania-Montenegro) o Dragoman (Bulgaria-Serbia) o Kulata (Bulgaria-Greece) o Ruse (Bulgaria-Romania) o Vidin (Bulgaria-Romania) o Svilengrad (Bulgaria-Turkey) o Idomeni (Greece-FYROM) o Promachonas (Greece-Bulgaria) Road BCPs o Bregana (Croatia-Slovenia) o Gorican (Croatia-Hungary) o Lipovac (Croatia-Serbia) o Zupanja (Croatia-Bosnia Herzegovina) o Artand (Hungary-Romania) o Letenye (Hungary-Croatia) o Roszke (Hungary-Serbia) o Zahony (Hungary-Ukraine) o Stamora Moravita (Romania-Serbia) o Vama Albita (Romania-Moldova) Page 14 of 34

15 o Oradea/Bors (Romania-Hungary) o Giurgu (Romania-Bulgaria) o Calafat (Romania-Bulgaria) o Siret (Romania-Ukraine) o Batrovci (Serbia-Croatia) o Gradina (Serbia-Bulgaria) o Horgos (Serbia-Hungary) o Presevo (Serbia-FYROM) o Trbusnica (Serbia-Bosnia Herzegovina) o Vatin (Serbia-Romania) o Obrezje (Slovenia-Croatia) o Evzonoi (Greece-FYROM) o Krystallopigi (Greece-Albania) o Kakavia (Greece-Albania) o Bregovo (Bulgaria-Serbia) o Kalotina (Bulgaria-Serbia) o Kapitan Andreevo (Bulgaria-Turkey) o Kulata (Bulgaria-Greece) o Promachonas BCP (Greece-Bulgaria) o Russe (Bulgaria-Romania) The following map (Figure 4) presents the above mentioned rail and road Border Crossing Points: Page 15 of 34

16 Figure 4: Overview - ACROSSEE surveyed Rail Border Crossing Points (extract from map 2.2.A) Figure 5: Overview - ACROSSEE surveyed Road Border Crossing Points (extract from map 2.2.B) Page 16 of 34

17 On the other hand traffic flow surveys were carried out at 53 Border Crossing Points to collect information about the Average Daily Traffic (ADT), distribution of traffic flow during the day. Traffic counts where performed at a) pairs of border stations (when BCPs were surveyed on both sides of the border) but at one single cross section, b) single stations (when only one BCP was surveyed on one side of the border) or c) a cross section of a border crossing links between EU countries. The road vehicles were split into four categories, namely cars, light commercial vehicles, heavy commercial vehicles and buses. Further information was collected on the number of trains, number of locomotors, electric or diesel, number of wagons, typology of wagons (e.g. flat wagons, covered wagons, tank wagons, and silo wagons), type of commodity etc. The following tables (Table 2 and Table 3) provide an overview about the rail and road border stations where traffic flow surveys were carried out, additionally Figure 6 shows them on a map. Table 2: Traffic flow surveys at Rail Border Crossing Points Country Bordering with Rail BCP name Albania Montenegro Hani I Hotit Austria Hungary Nickelsdorf Austria Slovenia Spielfeld Bulgaria Serbia Dragoman Bulgaria Romania Vidin Bulgaria Romania Ruse Bulgaria Turkey Svilengrad Croatia Hungary Koprivnica Croatia Bosnia Herzegovina Slavonski Šamac Greece FYROM Idomeni Greece Bulgaria Promachonas Page 17 of 34

18 Hungary Ukraine Záhony Italy Slovenia Villa Opicina Italy Austria Tarvisio Romania Moldova Holboca Romania Hungary Curtici Romania Serbia Stamora Moraviţa Romania Ukraine Dorneşti Serbia Croatia Sid Serbia FYROM Preševo Serbia Hungary Subotica Serbia Bosnia Herzegovina Loznica Serbia Montenegro Vrbnica Slovenia Croatia Dobova Slovenia Hungary Hodos Table 3: Traffic flow surveys at Road Border Crossing Points Country Bordering with Road BCP name Albania Montenegro Hani I Hotit Albania Greece Kakavijë Albania Kosovo Morine Austria Hungary Nickelsdorf Austria Slovenia Karavanke Bulgaria Serbia Kalotina Bulgaria Romania Vidin Page 18 of 34

19 Bulgaria Romania Ruse Bulgaria Turkey Kapetan Andreevo Croatia Hungary Gorican Croatia Bosnia Herzegovina Županja Greece FYROM Evzonoi Greece Bulgaria Promachonas Greece Albania Krystallopigi Hungary Ukraine Záhony Italy Slovenia Fernetti Italy Austria Tarvisio Romania Moldova Vama Albita Romania Hungary Oradea/Bors Romania Serbia Moraviţa Romania Ukraine Siret Serbia Croatia Batrovci Serbia FYROM Preševo Serbia Hungary Horgoš Serbia Bosnia Herzegovina Loznica Serbia Montenegro Vrbnica Slovenia Croatia Jesenice Slovenia Hungary Pince (Lendava) Page 19 of 34

20 Figure 6: ACROSSEE traffic count rail (blue) and road (red) sections Models In this subsection a short overview on the general characteristics of the ACROSSEE transport model and the TRANSTOOLS model is presented. The TRANSTOOLS model is based on the transport modelling software TRANSTOOLS v and covers almost all countries in Europe. The network model consists of four separate networks for road transport, rail passenger transport, rail freight transport and inland waterways transport. It consists of traffic zones, nodes and links, thus describes the necessary supply data of a transport system. It has ACROSSEE Deliverable 4.1: Demand Analysis Survey on SEE Traffic Flows Page 20 of 34

21 zones, covering 42 countries (including all of EU27). The base year is Further details can be found at On the other hand, the ACROSSEE model covers the whole area of South East Europe, including the following 16 countries: Albania, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy 1, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine 1. The network covers road, rail and inland waterways. Therefore the focus of this analysis will be on this area. The reference year for the current situation is 2013, thus in line with the ACROSSEE data collection. The transport modelling activities are based on the common four steps model approach and are implemented within the advanced transport modelling software: Citilabs Cube 6. More details can be found in the ACROSSEE Deliverable 4.2: ACROSSEE TRANSPORT MODEL ELABORATION, which summarises a description of the transport model development process along with its main results. 2.4 Network In this sub-section the differences in the network graphs and attributes of the ACROSSEE and the TRANSTOOLS model for road and rail are presented. The ACROSSEE road network includes all primary links, such as motorways and expressways, and also relevant secondary roads as national, regional and even, in some cases, provincial. While the railway network consists of almost all rail links, more precisely, only specific touristic or metropolitan lines are not included. The complete ACROSSEE networks for rail and road are shown in Figure 7 and Figure 10. The representations networks of ACROSSEE are presented in Figure 8 and Figure 11, here only the main corridor routes are included which cover the pan-european Corridors IV, V, VII, VIII, IX, X mentioned in 2.1 in large parts. In comparison, the TRANSTOOLS road and railway networks can be seen in Figure 9 and Figure 12. It can be seen that the granularity of both networks is quite detailed, therefore a Page 21 of 34

22 comparison of the geometry and data adhered on a link-to-link basis is possible in many cases. Figure 7: ACROSSEE road network 5 Figure 8: ACROSSEE road representation network (extract from map 2.4.A) 5 Source: ACROSSEE Deliverable 4.2 Page 22 of 34

23 Figure 9: TRANSTOOLS road network (without ferries) (extract from map 2.4.A) Figure 10: ACROSSEE rail network 5 Page 23 of 34

24 Figure 11: ACROSSEE rail representation network (extract from map 2.4.B) Figure 12: TRANSTOOLS rail network (extract from map 2.4.B) Page 24 of 34

25 In the following the (most relevant) link attributes of both models will be shown. Table 4 and Table 5 present the road network attributes of the TRANSTOOLS and ACROSSEE road networks, respectively. The railway network attributes are illustrated in Table 6 and Table 7. The ACROSSEE representation network illustrates only the relevant SEE rail and road network corridors and includes certain attributes like link type, number of lanes / tracks, but also provides information about the daily traffic (freight trains, light and heavy vehicles). Table 4: TRANSTOOLS attributes for road links - table RoadLinkWithPreload 6 No. Field Description / Unit 1 ID A unique identifier for each link 2 FromNodeID ID of the Node on the one end of the network link 3 ToNodeID ID of the Node on the other end of the network link 4 OpenFor Indicates whether the road is open or not in the forward direction (forward is always fromnode tonode); (1 = yes or 0 = no) 5 OpenBack Indicates whether the road is open or not in the backward direction (backward is always tonode fromnode); (1 = yes or 0 = no) 6 FreeSpeed The link speed in an uncongested situation; (km/hour) 7 QueueSpeed The minimum speed on the link or preferably the speed in a congested situation (depending on what is available); (km/hour) 8 LanesFor Number of lanes in forward direction 9 LanesBack Number of lanes in backward direction 10 LinkTypeID Linktype for the link; (1=motorways, 5=Rural road with separate directions, 6=Rural two-lane road, 9=Urban roads, 90=ferries) 11 LaneHCFor Lane hour capacity in forward direction. The value -1 means no capacity restraints; (cars per hour per lane) 12 LaneHCBack Lane hour capacity backward direction. The value -1 means no capacity restraints; (cars per hour per lane) 13 Active Indicates whether the link is included in the calculations or not (1=active, 0=inactive) 14 LinkLength Length of link in meters 6 Source: Brun B., Hansen S. (2009): TRANSTOOLS User-Guide for version 2.0 Page 25 of 34

26 15 NationalName National name for the link. 16 EuroName European name for the link. 17 RoadClass Link road class; (OE=Other European road, O=Other road, ME=European motorway, M=Motorway, D=Dual Carriageway, DE=European dual carriageway, F=Ferry). 18 TollCostPC Toll cost for person cars on the link; (Euro per km) 19 GerenicCostPC General country wide toll costs for person cars; (Euro per km) 21 TollCostTR Toll cost for trucks on the link; (Euro per km) 22 GerenicCostTR General country wide toll costs for Trucks; (Euro per km) 23 Urban Indicates whether the link is located in urban areas or not; (1=urban, 0=non-urban) Table 5: ACROSSEE - road network attributes 5 No. Field Description / Unit Identification field which includes the codes of the delimiting nodes 1 ID (e.g.1500_1245) 2 NAME Name of road, if available 3 TYPOLOGY Type of road (e.g. motorway, main road, secondary road, etc.) 4 ONEWAY Allowed traffic directions 0: bidirectional (default value); 1: monodirectional link with the same direction of the traced polyline -1: monodirectional link with the opposite direction respect to the traced polyline. 5 CATEGORY Group to which the link is belonging according to the links performance classification 6 NUMBER_OF_LANES Number of lanes per direction 7 CAPACITY Maximum number of travelling vehicles per hour (with reference to a specific direction) 8 FREE_FLOW_SPEED Average desired speed experience when the link traffic flow is close to 0 9 LENGTH Link length 10 TOLL_ ROAD /km 11 TRAFFIC LIMITATION It is referred to permanent limitations valid throughout the year 0: no limitations (default value); Page 26 of 34

27 1: no entry for all vehicular categories 2: heavy vehicles ban Table 6: TRANSTOOLS attributes for rail links table RailLink 6 No. Field Description / Unit 1 ID A unique identifier for each link 2 FromNodeID Fromnode for the network link 3 ToNodeID Tonode for the network link 4 OpenFor Indicates whether the rail link is open or not in the forward direction (fromnode to tonode); (1 = yes or 0 = no) 5 OpenBack Indicates whether the rail link is open or not in the backward direction (tonode to fromnode) ; (1 = yes or 0 = no) 6 FreeSpeed Speed on the link; (km/hour) 7 LanesFor Number of tracks in forward direction; (1 = if single track) 8 LanesBack Number of tracks in backward direction; (1 = if single track) 9 Tracks Total number of tracks. Not used in calculations 10 Active Indicates whether the link is included in the calculations or not, (1=active, 0=inactive) 11 LinkLength Length of link in meters 12 Class Type; (CL=conventional line, UL=upgraded line, NL=new line, FE=ferry). 13 Freq Number of departures per day Table 7: ACROSSEE - rail network attributes 5 No. Field Description / Unit 1 ID Identification field which includes the codes of the delimiting nodes (e.g.1500_1245) 2 POWER SUPPLY e = electrified; ne = not electrified 3 ELECTRICAL VOLTAGE Value in kv 4 NUMBER OF TRACKS Overall number of tracks (no distinction is made with reference to directions) 5 CAPACITY Estimated maximum number of trains/day vehicles per hour (summing up both direction) Page 27 of 34

28 6 MAX_ALLOWED_SPEED Maximum allowed speed 7 LENGTH Link length 8 PROFILE_CODE UIC Loading gauge classification of the maximum allowed transversal height and width (of travelling railway vehicles and loads) 9 AXLE LOAD Classification of the maximum allowed axle load In order to identify attributes which are commonly used in both models the network attributes assigned to the single network element an analysis was done. The comparison of attributes between the ACROSSEE transport model and TRANSTOOLS shows that certain attributes are directly comparable. For others no direct 1:1 reference between the attributes of the different model can be made. Table 4 and Table 5 show that a selection of road attributes are identical or similar to the attributes used in the ACROSSEE road network, namely the following: name of road, typology, type of road, number of lanes, capacity, free flow speed, and link length. The toll costs are included in both models, although TRANSTOOLS distinguishes between passenger and freight toll costs, while ACROSSEE has only one overall value. On the other hand in the ACROSSEE model the links indicate traffic limitation (i.e. heavy vehicle ban) directly. Similar to the road attribute comparison, a comparison for the network attributes was done on link level for road. The rail attributes in Table 6 and Table 7 illustrate that the following attributes are directly comparable: number of tracks, capacity, max allowed speed and link length can be compared. The attributes power supply (which indicates if a section is electrified or not), electrical voltage, the maximum allowed transversal height and width, as well as the maximum allowed axle load are not directly visible in the link attributes of TRANSTOOLS therefore no direct 1:1 comparison is possible. 2.5 Zones The comparison of zoning of both models ACROSSEE and TRANSTOOLS is based on the Origin-Destination matrices. The ACROSSEE transport model is using Page 28 of 34

29 the NUTS nomenclature, the zones are on NUTS2 level (or compatible with) and it includes all countries in South East Europe. The TRANSTOOLS model also uses the NUTS nomenclature and there are different levels of detail of NUTS II and NUTS III within member states. It is most detailed in Germany and Western Europe and has no zones outside Europe and Russia. Certain models (e.g. freight mode choice and logistics model) work on NUTS II, while others (e.g. trade and route choice models) work on NUTS III. Figure 13 and Figure 14 provide an overview about the granularity of the zones for the ACROSSEE and TRANSTOOLS model, respectively. The following Table 8 presents the amount of zones in the area of South East Europe. It can be seen that certain area, e.g. Italy and Greece are very detailed in the TRANSTOOLS model, while on the other hand more aggregated data was used in the ACROSSE model. The Origin-Destination matrices show the flows between ACROSSEE model internal zones and provide information about the (average) daily light and heavy vehicle traffic volume as well as daily freight train traffic volume for the reference year Table 8: Zoning ACROSSEE Number of Zones per country TRANSTOOLS NUTS2 TRANSTOOLS NUTS3 Country Name Country Number Number Number AL Albania AT Austria BA Bosnia BG Bulgaria GR Greece HR Croatia HU Hungary Page 29 of 34

30 IT Italy KO Kosovo ME Montenegro MK FYROM RO Romania RS Serbia SL Slovenia Total Figure 13: ACROSSEE zones (extract from map 2.5.A) Page 30 of 34

31 Figure 14: TRANSTOOLS zones (extract from map 2.5.B) Page 31 of 34

32 3 Conclusion The ACROSSEE transport model covers the area of South East Europe and several pan-european corridors (IV, V, VII, VIII, IX, X) touch and go through this region. The Meta analysis included a comparison between the ACROSSEE transport model, which was built upon the advanced transport modelling software Citilabs Cube 6, and the base model of the version of the European transport modelling software TRANSTOOLS (TOOLS for TRansport Forecasting ANd Scenario testing). The aim was to assess in principal which data could be used as input for the future (of TRANSTOOLS, but possibly also other models or activities). It showed that there are several attributes included in both models which could be directly compared like e.g. name of road, typology, type of road, number of lanes and tracks, capacity, free flow speed, capacity, link length. While other attributes are not directly comparable since different approaches were used like e.g. toll cost, here a conversion factor or similar has to be found to make both values comparable. The ACROSSEE transport model includes several parameters directly in the link attributes like traffic limitation (i.e. heavy vehicle ban), power supply (which indicates if a section is electrified or not), electrical voltage, the maximum allowed transversal height and width, as well as the maximum allowed axle load, which are not included in the link attributes of TRANSTOOLS, but could possibly integrated within other areas of the model. Therefore it shows that quite a lot of attributes could be integrated directly, for others some conversion efforts are necessary, but can at least be used as input in some way. In terms of zoning, it can be seen that the ACROSSEE zones are in some cases on the same level, but others are not as detailed, therefore for several areas the data can only be compared on a more aggregated level. A Meta-analysis was done, since the model data varies quite widely in the base year. While the TRANSTOOLS is calibrated for the base year 2005, the ACROSSEE model builds upon the new collected data within the ACROSSEE Page 32 of 34

33 project in This illustrates one of the biggest values of the ACROSSEE model data in terms of timeliness. Therefore the reuse of all available data is recommended, due to the timeliness and quality for this area, since especially in South East Europe the data stock is not always as good as desired. But not only the data network and demand data can be further used, also the information about the daily traffic (freight trains, light and heavy vehicles) could be used to calibrate the TRANSTOOLS or other models. Moreover, the information about general characteristics, available infrastructure and further details and information about procedures and documents, waiting times, problems and future plans etc. of Border Crossing Points as well as detailed information from the truck questionnaire is suitable as reusable data. Page 33 of 34

34 Annex I: Maps Number Title 2.2.A Rail Border Crossing Points (surveyed) 2.2.B 2.4.A 2.4.B 2.5.A Road Border Crossing Points (surveyed) Comparison of the road network of TRANSTOOLS and ACROSSEE (representation) Comparison of the rail network of TRANSTOOLS and ACROSSEE (representation) ACROSSEE Zones 2.5.B TRANSTOOLS Zones Page 34 of 34

35 SK UA AT HU MD SI HR RO BA RS MNE BG AL MK GR

36 SK UA AT HU MD IT SI HR RO BA RS MNE BG AL MK GR

37 Legend TRANSTOOLS road network (2005) ACROSSEE road representation network (2013) SEE programme regions SEE programme countries Kilometer Countries 2.4.A Comparison of the road network of TRANSTOOLS and ACROSSEE (representation)

38 Legend TRANSTOOLS rail network (2005) ACROSSEE rail representation network (2013) SEE programme regions SEE programme countries Kilometer Countries 2.4.B Comparison of the rail network of TRANSTOOLS and ACROSSEE (representation)

39 Legend ACROSSEE zones SEE programme regions SEE programme countries Kilometer Countries 2.5.A ACROSSEE Zones

40 Legend TRANSTOOLS zones SEE programme countries Kilometer Countries 2.5.B TRANSTOOLS Zones